Gibbs responds: I told Ed Schultz he was intentionally lying to ‘get people to watch his show.’

Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 11:07 AM by babylonsister

Gibbs responds: I told Ed Schultz he was intentionally lying to ‘get people to watch his show.’

As ThinkProgress first reported yesterday, MSNBC host Ed Schultz told a progressive gathering in Minnesota that he recently engaged in a testy confrontation with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. In an off-the-air conversation, Schultz told Gibbs he was “full of sh*t,” leading Gibbs to respond with “the f-bomb.” The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent followed up with Gibbs to explain what happened:

{Gibbs} says he pointedly accused Schultz of misleading viewers about the Dem health care plan in order to “get people to watch his show.”

Asked about Schultz’s account, Gibbs emailed that in their private talk, he strongly took issue with Schultz’s claim that the health care bill is a gift to the insurance industry.

Gibbs adds that he demanded Schultz tell him “why he’d tell his viewers something so completely and knowingly wrong in an attempt to get people to watch his show.”

The White House has tried repeatedly to dispute the concern that health insurance companies would profit from the current reform proposal. In November, White House health policy adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle argued that “insurance companies will profit if status quo remains.” And in December, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer argued that insurance companies wouldn’t be spending vast amounts of money to lobby against the bill if it were good for them.

3. The insurance companies WILL profit more if the bill doesn't pass and the status quo remains

I think people like Ed are kind of dangerous--a not-very-bright, and a ratings-hungry preacher type selling populist pabulum to his minions. We can see the effects of it here every day, where a misinformed (or intentionally misleading?) rant on Ed leads to sloganeering that facts and rational discussion can not break through. He's an Elmer Gantry type, and I haven't approved of him from the beginning. It's not that his heart isn't in the right place or he's a bad man--I'm sure he's not. But this kind of proselytizing is bad no matter who is doing it.

If your only focus is on preventing the insurance industry from deriving any profit (and of course, they will make demonstrably MORE profit if we do not pass the current HCR bill), you lose focus on all the other elements at play: 47 million uninsured, an unsustainable system whose runaway costs will bankrupt both individuals and the country, actual lives at stake now, and the political implications of failing at this point to pass a bill after a year of sucking all the air out of Washington.

Stirring up anger against insurance companies is fine ... but if the net result in the end is to (a) quash any possibility for ANY reform and (b) confuse people to the point that they will let a TeaBagger win in Massachusetts and possibly elsewhere ... then it's a bad thing.

Creating bogeymen is always a danger, because it simplifies complex situations. There's always a grain of truth in it that people can latch on to, but it distorts reality. It preys on people and is manipulative. Call me elitist, but I don't like rabble rousing. It's perfectly possible to discuss the evils of the insurance industry without falling victim to cutting off our own noses.

The basic problem is the high cost of coverage and the crappy terms of policies for everybody.

Yes, there many other places where costs are too high, and some forms of controls and containment are necessary.

But the plain basic fact is that allowing for-profit insurers to be the sole gatekeeper for people who don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid is a big reason so many people are either not covered, undercovered or they or their employers are stretched to the max to pay their premiums.

The real answer is universal single payer coverage. The next best thing is optional public insurance. But both have been taken off the table -- to the delight of insurance companies.

Call that populist pablum if you want, but letting insurers off the hook plays right into their hands.

where you think the failure of this bill will lead to a British style single-payer system here in our lifetimes, there is little we can discuss. Because I don't believe such a universe exists, except in science fiction. If the bill fails and the status quo prevails, it will make it harder and harder to achieve that goal ever: the insurance industry will become ever richer and more powerful and, especially in light of last week's SCOTUS decision, will be able to lobby even more effectively in the future. We won't get better, we'll get nothing. And in the meantime, important regulations, reforms, and assistance will be lost.

Again, we have no ideological differences ... but a huge difference in tactics.

29. It IS possible to have a lot more balance in how insurance is provided

Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 12:27 PM by Armstead

I don't think that eventually a universal single payer system is impossible, but that's not the only alternative to the shitmess we have now.

What is possible -- and politically popular -- is to have much stronger regulation of insurance companies AND some kind of public program so that they are not the only gatekeepers.

I believe that opening up Medicare to more people on an optional buy-in basis is both practical and would be possible and popular to do.... Yes, there would have to be some financial aspects to work out, but an affordable plan that younger healthier people could buy into would do a lot to offset any cost of expansion.

There are otehr solutions that go much farther than this lame "reform" we have now that have been taken off the table by the "pragmatic" corporate friendly brand of conservative Democrat.

If we reject anything better out of hand, I guarantee we'll never get any actual improverments.

nothing will be done, all the health care problems that already exist will magically heal themselves? The reason they're pretending to try to fix health care is because there are real problems. They aren't going away if nothing is done right now, and given the nature of this bill, they aren't going away even if the bill passes. The issue must be dealt with realisticly, and that solution requires putting the insurance and pharmaceutical companies to heel. Any real healthcare plan needs to be structured around the needs of the people, rather than being structured around the needs of the for-profit insurance companies.

and explain to Schultz, and his audience, why Schultz is wrong. I'm sure Schultz would give him plenty of time to present his argument and if Gibbs has a solid case to make it would help to sell the current bill.

Secret phone calls from the White House to the media are not a healthy thing.

But essentially Ed and Gibbs are both Dems and both on the same side, with different tactics wanting to be used to get the end result. I think Gibbs and Obama have to start realizing that they need to get tougher and more populist or risk losing the base. I think they are starting to get that with bringing back Volcker into the fold. But much more work needs to be done.

The Health Insurance and Drug Industry Profit Protection Act Sucks and Should be Killed

Miles MogulescuPosted: December 16, 2009

............What's left of health care "reform" is little more than a massive taxpayer-financed subsidy to private insurance and drug companies. No wonder the insurance companies are blogging "we won!" This bill should be defeated.

I say this with no great joy. Although, as I've written extensively in these pages, I'm a long-time supporter of Medicare-For-All, there's a version of incremental reform which would still be worthy of support as a compromise--It would have included a robust public option with Medicare-based pricing available to a large number of Americans, regulation of private insurance premiums, negotiation of drug prices by the Federal government, an end to the insurance industry's exemption from anti-trust laws, a Medicare buy-in for 55-65 year-olds, among other things. But none of that is included in the current Insurance and Drug Industry Profit Protection Act now being proposed in Congress....

The best short-term solution may be to kill this terrible "comprehensive" health "reform" bill. Let it go down 41-59 in the Senate and then blame the Party of No and the Party of Joe. Then pass a series of individual bills which keep the best parts of the larger bill and incrementally improves things. Use reconciliation, where possible, and, where not possible, force Republicans to filibuster against popular provision live and in person. Among these individual fixes are:

• Pass the cost-savings reforms to Medicare. In particular, abolish the Medicare Advantage program which subsidizes private insurance companies to provide Medicare drug benefits at a 17% higher cost than the government-run Medicare plan.

• Use the Medicare savings to increase Medicaid eligibility to 150% of the Federal Poverty Level, and subsidize the states for the extra cost.

• Let Medicare use its negotiating power to lower drug costs and allow people to buy cheaper drugs in Canada.

• Revoke the insurance company's anti-trust exemption.

• Let uninsured individuals buy into the Federal Employee Health Plan available to government workers, without any restrictions on pre-existing conditions.

Then go back to the drawing boards, put together a truly progressive comprehensive health care reform bill, and organize a true grassroots movement to get it passed.

It's not the best outcome. It would have been better if the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats had stood up to the insurance and drug companies in the first place and fought hard for a good bill. But under the circumstances, it's better than passing The Health Insurance and Drug Industry Profit Protection Act that's currently on the floor of Congress.

"As momentum gains for reforms, insurers hope to turn it to their advantage by supporting a proposal that everyone buy coverage. It would be a boost for the industry, which has seen enrollment decline.

...But this time, it turns out, the health insurance industry has good reason to support at least some change: It needs it. Private health insurance faces a bleak future if the proposal they champion most vigorously -- a requirement that everyone buy medical coverage -- is not adopted.

...Insurers do not embrace all of the healthcare restructuring proposals. But they are fighting hard for a purchase requirement, sweetened with taxpayer-funded subsidies for customers who can't afford to buy it on their own, and enforced with fines.

...The industry's real trouble begins in 2011, when 79 million baby boomers begin turning 65. Health insurers stand to lose a huge slice of their commercially insured enrollment (estimated at 162 million to 172 million people) over the next two decades to Medicare, the government-funded health insurance program for seniors..."

For insurers, getting "run over" would be the adoption of a so-called single-payer plan, where the government pays all medical bills. Such a plan would wreak havoc on the private insurance market, and is widely viewed as politically unfeasible this year. So the best way for the industry to preserve the private insurance market -- and derail the campaign for a single-payer system -- may be to go along with more palatable proposals on the table now, said Jeffrey Miles, a healthcare analyst and president of the Miles Organization, a Los Angeles insurance brokerage firm..."

"...Indeed, some insurance stocks initially rose on expectations that the Massachusetts Senate vote might have derailed the Democrats’ health overhaul. But more of the same might not actually be such good news for insurers, some health policy experts and Wall Street analysts say.

...In return, Mr. Funtleyder noted, Congress was potentially delivering as many as 30 million new customers to the insurance market — many of whom would be able to afford coverage because the government would subsidize the cost of premiums.

...But now, in the possible absence of forced change to their business, the insurers still face the daunting challenge of selling a product that is increasingly out of reach for more Americans as the cost of medical care — and thus premiums — continues to climb.

...For insurers, the largest risk may be that without a government-led overhaul, their industry faces an even bleaker future should medical costs and premiums continue to soar, perhaps eventually prompting draconian changes from the government.

...“It’s going to come back to the forefront again,” predicted Matthew Borsch, an analyst at Goldman Sachs who follows the industry and says the insurers face an increasingly daunting environment. “When it comes back to the forefront, is it going to be an even scarier proposition?”

the insurance industry lobbied to get the bill they want, or stop it completely, now they pretty much have what they want. If it were bad for their business, health care stocks would be down. They're way up. I rest my case.

if it was explained to them, and how they would benefit from it. Unfortunately the Obama administration never made the effort to do that, because they never wanted it. The same with the P.O., I am not convinced they ever wanted that either. Maybe Ed is being idealistic, but I have no problem with a progressive pundit doing that, I have a problem with an administration and a Congress who never gave us the chance.

"As we recall, a high-profile event at the White House in May 2009 brought together most of the major corporate stakeholders in the U. S. health care system in an effort to build momentum toward reform. The Obama Administration welcomed the cooperative spirit and combined pledges of some stakeholders to shave 1.5 percent off the growth in health care spending over ten years, amounting to “savings” of about $2 trillion. The meeting was proclaimed “an historic event” boding well for the goals of reform — gaining near-universal coverage to affordable health care while reining in costs and improving quality of care.

Having considered the voluntary, unenforceable pledges, together with the agendas and subsequent actions by five of the major stakeholders, it is now useful to re-assess the impacts on reform by the corporate “alliance” struck at that time. Table 1 summarizes the pledges and agendas, as well as the tactics and likely rewards, for the Big Five stakeholders.

As is evident from Table 1, all five stakeholders, with the possible exception of some Large employers, will do well with health care reform along the lines of bills now before Congress. The House bill (H.R. 3200), with a cost of some $1 trillion over 10 years and without effective cost containment mechanisms, would add greatly to the revenues of all corporate stakeholders in the medical industrial complex. Their revenues, of course, are our costs, especially since the insurance industry will likely be protected by lenient standards (such as by a requirement being considered by the Senate Finance Committee that insurance should have to cover only 65 percent of health care costs).

The Big Five that we have looked at are only part of the cost problem. There are many other major players in the health care industry, mostly investor-owned, with a primary mission to make money, not save the money of either patients, their families or taxpayers. These players range from medical device and medical equipment industries to nursing homes to information technology. As just one example, General Electric, the 12th largest corporation in the world, has a big market share for imaging equipment and information technology. It has initiated a big national advertising campaign supporting health care reform, while its lobbyists fight against cuts in Medicare reimbursement for imaging procedures..."

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.